Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'the evolutionary scapegoat'
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 39 (14294)
07-28-2002 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jonathan
07-26-2002 12:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
I see your point. All of these traits can theoreticaly offer a survival advantage. However I dont think that the "advantage" they offer would have much impact on their ability to reproduce.
Sure I can see how opposable thumbs can be extreamly advantageous to survival/reproduction. But if all of your species have no spinal ridges (and you are the first to have these) then for this to be advantagous to you all of the others in your species would have to be regularly suffering from spinal injuries otherwise you would have very little advantage over the others. You compared this to a disfigured eye being repulsive to all other mates but if you were the first to have a tear duct then the rest of your species would have disfigured eyes, not you.
If natural selection works as well as you theorize then why do we have genetic predispositions towards obesity, poor eyesight, poor hearing even baldness? These traits have a much greater impact on their survival/reproductive success then say spinal ridges, eye lashes, eyebrows or any other trait with low "survival influence."
You can call it incredulity but I just dont think that your model for reproductive success will work like you plan. Just because an individual has an improved design (tear duct, eye brow)over the others does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that he will have a reproductive or survival advantage over the others.

Gene pretty much answered this, but I would just like to point out that you making a pretty common but MAJOR mistake concerning what the ToE predicts.
The ToE does not predict that suddenly, "poof!" someone will be born with a modern tear duct where before, none of their ancestors had anything like a tear duct. The ToE predicts that change comes over time, over many generations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jonathan, posted 07-26-2002 12:25 PM Jonathan has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 32 of 39 (14317)
07-28-2002 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jonathan
07-26-2002 12:25 PM


quote:
If natural selection works as well as you theorize then why do we have genetic predispositions towards obesity, poor eyesight, poor hearing even baldness? These traits have a much greater impact on their survival/reproductive success then say spinal ridges, eye lashes, eyebrows or any other trait with low "survival influence."
On the other hand, if the human body was "perfectly designed by God", why do we have these problems in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jonathan, posted 07-26-2002 12:25 PM Jonathan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by John, posted 07-28-2002 6:34 PM nator has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 39 (14321)
07-28-2002 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nator
07-28-2002 5:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
If natural selection works as well as you theorize then why do we have genetic predispositions towards obesity, poor eyesight, poor hearing even baldness? These traits have a much greater impact on their survival/reproductive success then say spinal ridges, eye lashes, eyebrows or any other trait with low "survival influence."
On the other hand, if the human body was "perfectly designed by God", why do we have these problems in the first place?

Cause God is near-sighted.... obviously.... geez...
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 07-28-2002 5:55 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 07-28-2002 7:05 PM John has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 39 (14326)
07-28-2002 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by John
07-28-2002 6:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
If natural selection works as well as you theorize then why do we have genetic predispositions towards obesity, poor eyesight, poor hearing even baldness? These traits have a much greater impact on their survival/reproductive success then say spinal ridges, eye lashes, eyebrows or any other trait with low "survival influence."
On the other hand, if the human body was "perfectly designed by God", why do we have these problems in the first place?

Cause God is near-sighted.... obviously.... geez...

Duh! What was I thinkin'?
LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by John, posted 07-28-2002 6:34 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jonathan, posted 07-28-2002 11:56 PM nator has replied

  
Jonathan
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 39 (14355)
07-28-2002 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by nator
07-28-2002 7:05 PM


You guys are right. Im such a fool for beleiving in somthing as silly as that.
What was I thinking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 07-28-2002 7:05 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 07-29-2002 3:38 PM Jonathan has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 39 (14400)
07-29-2002 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jonathan
07-28-2002 11:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
You guys are right. Im such a fool for beleiving in somthing as silly as that.
What was I thinking?

You believe that God is nearsighted?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jonathan, posted 07-28-2002 11:56 PM Jonathan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Jonathan, posted 07-29-2002 8:09 PM nator has replied

  
Jonathan
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 39 (14415)
07-29-2002 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nator
07-29-2002 3:38 PM


You know what I meant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 07-29-2002 3:38 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 07-30-2002 2:49 PM Jonathan has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 39 (14512)
07-30-2002 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jonathan
07-29-2002 8:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan:
You know what I meant.
Well, yes, but don't you see the point?
The point is, you didn't really think through the idea of the human body being "perfectly designed." You already disregard the ToE and Biology when it is clear that you don't really know what it's all about.
I don't think you are silly for beliving in God. However to say that the human body is perfectly designed is rather silly.
I think it's silly to hold a belief that is contrary to reality, especially when you have not gone to the trouble of investigating the facts before deciding upon what to think about them.
Go to the TalkOrigins website and look around the FAQ pages. You have several very fundamental gaps in your knowledge concerning science and the ToE; you hold some pretty major misconceptions. The website is the best online source of scientific information for the layperson which deals with the subject at hand. You would serve yourself well to get a good grounding in the research before you make descisions.
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jonathan, posted 07-29-2002 8:09 PM Jonathan has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 39 of 39 (14971)
08-07-2002 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
07-11-2002 3:59 AM


It is not true that my grandfather said that GOd is evil/unjust though he would probably agree somewhat with what you wrote up to this point while it was true that as he was dying an Episcopal Priest and Stan came to the same understanding on Prayer. Evolution is certainly "accountable" for adapation if any biology is but it would not even be scientific creationism to assert that this covers Mercy if I have the grace to so speak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-11-2002 3:59 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024